abcdefz
08-03-2006, 01:24 PM
Did anybody else see this? What did you think?
SPOILER AHEAD MAYBE BUT WHO KNOWS
I thought everything was going along great until, of course, the ending. I don't mind ambiguity, but you've got to give me something to hang it on, and that laaaaaaaaaast shot, outisde the boy's school (?) -- that just confused things. Maybe.
Earlier, when the boy confronted his mom about having an affair with the family friend, I started thinking that maybe it was the boy who was taping them. I didn't know how else he would have scene that affectionate scene at the café otherwise (if that's what he was referring to). But how did he get around, at 12 years old? How did he drive a car to the country, to the Algerian's apartment, etc.? Maybe the clue is when he goes missing for a couple of days and the boy's friend's mother returns him, saying that she and her husband's household is "pretty laid back" and she didn't realize he was still there. :rolleyes: Could the boys have used the opportunity to go driving and mischief-making with a video camera? Maybe. I know I was stealing my older brother's car for joyrides when I was 13, so it's not inconceivable to me.
But that last shot... outside the boy's school.... he doesn't seem to appear in it, so: is he behind the camera? (He IS the one member of the family who wasn't on the tapes at any time.) Or is it the voyeur just now getting around to taping where he or she (or they) expect(s) the boy to be, and they're waiting?
I know the movie's main themes are about guilt and repression and history and memory and consequence, but that last shot kind of threw me. The movie could've wrapped with the second to last shot, and I'd think the identity of the person(s) taping the family was unimportant, but that last shot forces the issue and then -- that's it. -- which gives it more heft than it should have, which befuddles me. I have no idea what the author's intent is at that point, which weakens the film for me.
Any thoughts?
SPOILER AHEAD MAYBE BUT WHO KNOWS
I thought everything was going along great until, of course, the ending. I don't mind ambiguity, but you've got to give me something to hang it on, and that laaaaaaaaaast shot, outisde the boy's school (?) -- that just confused things. Maybe.
Earlier, when the boy confronted his mom about having an affair with the family friend, I started thinking that maybe it was the boy who was taping them. I didn't know how else he would have scene that affectionate scene at the café otherwise (if that's what he was referring to). But how did he get around, at 12 years old? How did he drive a car to the country, to the Algerian's apartment, etc.? Maybe the clue is when he goes missing for a couple of days and the boy's friend's mother returns him, saying that she and her husband's household is "pretty laid back" and she didn't realize he was still there. :rolleyes: Could the boys have used the opportunity to go driving and mischief-making with a video camera? Maybe. I know I was stealing my older brother's car for joyrides when I was 13, so it's not inconceivable to me.
But that last shot... outside the boy's school.... he doesn't seem to appear in it, so: is he behind the camera? (He IS the one member of the family who wasn't on the tapes at any time.) Or is it the voyeur just now getting around to taping where he or she (or they) expect(s) the boy to be, and they're waiting?
I know the movie's main themes are about guilt and repression and history and memory and consequence, but that last shot kind of threw me. The movie could've wrapped with the second to last shot, and I'd think the identity of the person(s) taping the family was unimportant, but that last shot forces the issue and then -- that's it. -- which gives it more heft than it should have, which befuddles me. I have no idea what the author's intent is at that point, which weakens the film for me.
Any thoughts?